ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Intimate partner violence among HIV index case testing clients in Malawi, a mixed-methods study.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While its prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa is high, intimate partner violence (IPV) is rarely reported during routine index case testing (ICT) services in Malawi. We retrospectively explored the occurrence of IPV in a large, PEPFAR-supported HIV care and treatment program, among people with HIV (PWH) who had previously accessed ICT services. Between July-August 2022, we enrolled PWH aged ≥18 years, at 15 health facilities, who had received ICT services as new ART-initiators <6 months ago. We used a validated World Health Organization tool to measure IPV in domains of physical, sexual and emotional abuse, and controlling behaviors in the past 12 months. To understand reasons for IPV non-reporting, we randomly selected a sub-set of PWH who had experienced IPV and healthcare workers (HCWs) providing ICT services, for in-depth interviews (IDIs). We enrolled 149 PWH, 71.8% were female, 58.4% married, mean age 34 (IQR 25-40) years. Overall IPV prevalence was 71.1% (95%CI: 63.8%-78.5%), 76.6% (95%CI 68.5%-84.8%) among females and 57.1% (95%CI: 41.5%-72.8%) among males. Controlling behavior (65.7%) was the most common form of IPV, followed by physical (24.8%), emotional (33.6%), and sexual abuse (20.8%). Twenty-two percent related the IPV event to the HIV diagnosis. We analyzed 24 IDIs (15 PWH, 9 HCWs). Only two PWH (13.3%) had reported IPV to a HCW. Major barriers to reporting IPV for PWH were believing it is inappropriate discussing IPV with HCWs, concerns that discussing IPV would cause delays for others, and limited privacy. HCWs attributed IPV non-reporting to insufficient screening, high workload among ICT staff, negative HCW attitudes, and PWH's fear of unintended consequences of IPV reporting. IPV prevalence was high among PWH who had recently undergone ICT, but IPV is often not reported. Multiple barriers to IPV reporting must be addressed urgently, given IPV's adverse impact on HIV treatment and other health outcomes.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.